Doris Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Merrick Garland
69 F.4th 1012
9th Cir.2023Background
- Doris Amanda Rodriguez-Zuniga and her son Nelson (derivative) are Guatemalan nationals who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after entering the U.S. without documents.
- In Guatemala (March 2016) a woman attempted to rob Rodriguez‑Zuniga after a bank withdrawal, threatened violence against her and said her son would “pay for it”; Rodriguez‑Zuniga refused and was never robbed again.
- Rodriguez‑Zuniga claimed persecution based on: (a) political opinion (refusal to submit to gang violence) and (b) membership in three particular social groups (including “Guatemalan families that lack an immediate family male protector,” “Guatemalan women,” and immediate family members of petitioner).
- The IJ credited her testimony but denied asylum/withholding (no nexus to protected grounds; one proposed social group not cognizable) and denied CAT relief (no government acquiescence). The BIA affirmed and added reasons.
- Ninth Circuit (VanDyke majority) denied the petition: BIA/IJ findings (non‑cognizability, no political‑opinion expression, no nexus because robber was motivated by extortion, and CAT claim forfeited/unsupported) were supported by substantial evidence. Judge Gilman dissented, arguing nexus and procedural errors warranted remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of social group: “Guatemalan families that lack an immediate family male protector” | That this family type is a particular social group and is socially distinct | BIA/IJ: record lacks evidence society perceives such families as a distinct group | Denied — record does not compel finding the group is socially distinct; agency decision upheld |
| Political‑opinion ground (refusal to submit to gang violence) | Refusal to give money and resist extortion expressed a political opinion against criminal gangs | Agency: refusal was not a sufficiently conscious/deliberate political expression; it was a non‑political reaction to crime | Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion petitioner did not express a protected political opinion |
| Nexus between threats/extortion and protected grounds (family membership; “extortion‑plus” theory) | Threats to petitioner and her son show targeting because of family membership; extortion can be combined with protected‑ground motives (Ayala) | Agency: robber was motivated exclusively by monetary gain; threats to son were instrumental to obtain money, not because of kinship | Denied — substantial evidence supports finding robber’s motive was extortion only; no compelled finding of nexus; Ayala distinguished as involving agency error and different facts |
| CAT relief — government acquiescence and procedural preservation | Petitioner contends individualized threat and country conditions show likely torture; government acquiescence implied | Government: petitioner failed to argue acquiescence before BIA and presented insufficient evidence | Denied — court deems acquiescence argument forfeited and, alternatively, substantial evidence supported denial of CAT relief; dissent disagrees and would remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017) (recognizes “extortion‑plus” theory where extortion may combine with protected‑ground motive)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (nexus inquiry focuses on persecutor’s perception of victim’s protected characteristic)
- Barajas‑Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (explains differing nexus standards: asylum’s “one central reason” vs withholding’s “a reason”)
- Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2021) (nexus requirement discussion for asylum/political‑opinion claims)
- Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015) (family can constitute a particular social group but must meet particularity/social‑distinctness tests)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (mixed‑motive/extortion‑plus framework)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (economic motive alone does not establish nexus)
- Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (2021) (courts should not supply post‑hoc rationalizations for agency decisions)
- Tchoukhrova v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) (family‑member persecution can support related applicants)